Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24816
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Abhinandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 4432 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BL Dembra
For the Respondents: Soumitra Kesharwani
A transport permit cannot be denied to an individual applicant based on the tax arrears of a family member, as such action violates the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India without statutory authorization.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to carry on trade or business - Denial of transport permit based on tax arrears of a family member is an unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in the absence of statutory prohibition. (Para 10, 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Grant of Permit - Liability of family member - Tax dues owed by a father cannot be attributed to the son applying for a permit in his individual capacity as the Act contains no such disqualification. (Para 12, 16)
Issues: Whether an application for grant of Inter-State permanent carriage permit can be denied solely on the ground that tax dues payable by the father of the petitioner have not yet been cleared?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for inter-state permit rejected due to father's tax arrears. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on individual capacity versus family liability for tax dues. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. fundamental right to business under article 19(1)(g) requires statutory basis for restriction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. absence of statutory provision in motor vehicles act to deny permit based on third-party dues. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. family member's default cannot be attributed to individual applicant. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. setting aside of arbitrary orders and direction to issue permit. (Para 20 , 21) |
CAV Order
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner – a bus operator, assails the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the STAT”), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, thereby affirming the order dated 18.1.2024 passed by the State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the STA”). By the aforesaid orders, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of Inter-State permanent stage carriage permit permit to ply his vehicle on the Ambikapur to Bokaro (Jharkhand) route was rejected. The rejection was on the basis of various grounds, mainly including the pending tax dues against the father of the petitioner namely Lakhpati Singh.
2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this petition :
10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the authorities with respect to petitioner and quash/set-aside the order dated 02.07.2024 in Appeal no. A03/2024 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur and consequently the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 be quashed.
10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to allow the application of the petitioner for grant of inter-state permanent stage carriage on the route Ambikapur to Bokaro via Kunkuri, Jahspur, Gumla, Gola with one single trip daily within specified time as this Court deems fit.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.
3. In a nutshell, the facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner applied for grant of Inter-State permanent stage carriage permit on the route from Ambikapur to Bokaro (Jharkhand) via Kunkuri, Jashpur, Ranchi, Ramgarh, Gola, Petarwar, Jainamod. Objections were invited by the STA concerned. After considering the objections and hearing the petitioner as well as other bus operators, the STA dismissed the application of the petitioner. The sole ground for rejection was the father of the petitioner namely Lakhpati Singh owed unpaid tax dues amounting to Rs.28 Lakhs to Regional Transport Office (RTO), Raipur and therefore, the petitioner was held ineligible for grant of permit only on account of being a family member. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT, inter alia challenging the order passed by the STA as contrary to law. It was also contended that no tax dues are outstanding against the father of the petitioner. In fact, the father of the petitioner had already challenged the alleged tax liability before this Court by filing WPC No.3676/2024 on the ground that he has overpaid taxes, which are liable to be adjusted and refunded to him. In the aforesaid case, this Court vide order dated 24.7.2024 directed the concerned authority to consider the claim of the father of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Further, even assuming that tax dues are pending against a family member, such liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner in the absence of cogent evidence establishing that the business is run as a joint family enterprise. Hence, the rejection of the permit application only
